I'd like a little clarification on that, presently that's just a soundbite.

He simply said that the market is formed by people.

I could say The people are democracy or The people are the soviet or The people are society and it would mean the same.

Yes, but democracy soviet and, by some definitions, society, impose things to you, while the market don't.

EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

Chaotic Neutral

E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

"I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

"Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

People here seem to not realize that the so hated corporations would'nt have any power without the state and all the taxes they pay to stae with do-gooder-zeal. And don't realize either that the credit bubble would never happen that big if there was not the state behind to assure the safe of big banks in case of bankrupt, letting them allowed to every sort of irresponsibles behavior.

No, I've heard this many times. It just isn't correct. Business could do a lot of damage without the help of the government.

It's like this:
A society with a government may have controlled business, or it may have rampant business.
A society without government is simply guaranteed to have rampant business. Though, as I said, it will eventually become an authority of such a kind as to possible be considered government in its own right. Think about it. If we go totally fee with the markets, police and soldiers become private employees, and it shouldn't be hard to see where it goes from there.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

I laughed at the "without the state, buisness become state". First, it's wrong, second, if buisness and state are the same thing, why do you prefer the state?

It's not exactly the same thing. The government in modern Norway is not the same as the government in ancient Egypt, is it?
Cutting the government back is like hitting a reset button. The forces left behind will form a government (or probably governments) vastly more crude, primitive, and unfair than the ones we currently hold as the standard. If you leave everything to be decided by business, you basically just have a bunch of warlords.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

Libertarianism is not about belief that everything will be good, simply that they will be less bad and about refusal to be a candidate for assistantship in exange of coercition.

Three points.

1: Society exists because of assistance in exchange of coercion. That's not going to change.
2: I'm pretty sure the great majority of human beings will take that assistance, thank you very much. Even most of the Tea Partiers in the USA constantly do, they are only differentiated by their ignorance. You
see throngs of old tea partiers at rallies accompanied by items they got from Medicare.
3: Sadly, if you want to be one of the people that opts out, you'll probably find that the society of people that opted in will be of such comparative power that it could effortless absorb you into its society whether you liked it or not. A group of altruists, competing with a group of egoists, crushes the group of egoists.

Can you give me an example of a society that qualifies as representing your ideals? Was it civilized? If you can't, have you ever wondered why that might be the case?

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

He simply said that the market is formed by people.

Yes, but democracy soviet and, by some definitions, society, impose things to you, while the market don't.

How are markets a separate entity from society? Are they not a product and part of society? I'm pretty sure things we could call rudimentary societies existed before things we could call markets, and markets emerged of more complex societies.

Also, markets absolutely impose things. If there are losers in a system, there are people being imposed upon. You won't find a society that doesn't impose things.

Go to sleep, iguana.

_________________________________INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

The trick is to have a strong but limited government: a lot of power but little scope. That is, the government needs to be able to execute its rules and plans thoroughly, but its rules and plans should impinge on as narrow range of its citizens' activities as possible. This is a very difficult, if not impossible, balance to achieve and sustain.

A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

The libertarian metaphor of government is a mafia; it is a protection racket that uses force to control economic activity; it became the government by stamping out all competition. The progressive metaphor of government is something more like a babysitter.

A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

No, I've heard this many times. It just isn't correct. Business could do a lot of damage without the help of the government.

It's like this:
A society with a government may have controlled business, or it may have rampant business.
A society without government is simply guaranteed to have rampant business.

A society without goverment have an economy ruled by principles of competitivity, responsability and concurence. Everything but rampant.

Though, as I said, it will eventually become an authority of such a kind as to possible be considered government in its own right. Think about it. If we go totally fee with the markets, police and soldiers become private employees, and it shouldn't be hard to see where it goes from there.

Entrepreneur and states/mafia are completely different sort of organisation. The first get his ressources from production and investment, the second from theft. The "civil" version of a state is a mafia. An entrepeneur can eventually become a mafia. But then that simply means that both statist and anarchist society have mafia, wich does'nt mean at all that anarchist society are less good.

Actually, the state is so incompetent to lust again that a statist system represent actually an addition of mafia. Libertarians propose to lust against every sort of mafia, civil or state. Actually, private police can be easily more efficient than public police because they are more competitives and mafia are also less offensive when people can simply carry a weapon free. Plus mafias, like corporations, get their power from infiltration into institutions aconnivence with the state. State is a problem and not a solution.

It's not exactly the same thing. The government in modern Norway is not the same as the government in ancient Egypt, is it?

It's not exactly the same but it does'nt mean that we are really free either:

[youtube=9u0TyDtn0v0]Ceci est l'histoire de votre esclavage[/youtube]

Cutting the government back is like hitting a reset button. The forces left behind will form a government (or probably governments) vastly more crude, primitive, and unfair than the ones we currently hold as the standard.

You remind me Ann Coulter each time we sugest to her any sort of retreat from Irak.

If you leave everything to be decided by business, you basically just have a bunch of warlords.

You stop to be a buisnessman as soon as you become a warlord. No war have ever been financed durably by buisness. Every war have been financed by theft and taxes. Buisness is about create wealth or exange wealth you ever have, not about agressively take it. It's true elsewhere that buisnessperson help some goverments or political organisation to take power in order to serve their own interest. But without the state, they would'nt do it because it would'nt be rentable.

Three points.

1: Society exists because of assistance in exchange of coercion. That's not going to change.

You make the point of the video I posted saying that there's not free society.

2: I'm pretty sure the great majority of human beings will take that assistance, thank you very much.

Most part of people are wimp and slave at heart, it's true. Does'nt mean that they are a model to follow.

3: Sadly, if you want to be one of the people that opts out, you'll probably find that the society of people that opted in will be of such comparative power that it could effortless absorb you into its society whether you liked it or not. A group of altruists, competing with a group of egoists, crushes the group of egoists.

A statist society is not a group of altruist.

Can you give me an example of a society that qualifies as representing your ideals? Was it civilized? If you can't, have you ever wondered why that might be the case?

The entire world was anarcho-capitalist between 6000 B.C and 4000 B.C. If you look at this well, it was the most harmonious era that the humanity have never known.

How are markets a separate entity from society?

I never said that.

Are they not a product and part of society? I'm pretty sure things we could call rudimentary societies existed before things we could call markets, and markets emerged of more complex societies

Market existed before the sate, for sure.

Also, markets absolutely impose things. If there are losers in a system, there are people being imposed upon. You won't find a society that doesn't impose things.

If you are a loser, it is your responsability, it is not imposed to you. There's not cops, law, or soldier who impose you to be a loser.

EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

Chaotic Neutral

E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

"I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

"Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

A society without goverment have an economy ruled by principles of competitivity, responsability and concurence. Everything but rampant.

I don't believe that. I don't think a business will be forced to operate in those terms in the absence of a government. In fact, in the absence of a government, it would be particularly tempting for someone to attempt taking what they want by unchecked force. You'll never find out how the economy operates a government free society because it will last all of two seconds.

Like I said, reset button.

Let me ask you again. Why do we have government everywhere? Why have your precious government-free cultures of antiquity essentially vanished?

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

Entrepreneur and states/mafia are completely different sort of organisation. The first get his ressources from production and investment, the second from theft. The "civil" version of a state is a mafia. An entrepeneur can eventually become a mafia. But then that simply means that both statist and anarchist society have mafia, wich does'nt mean at all that anarchist society are less good.

I think an entrepreneur is essentially guaranteed to take the first opportunity to become a thief. So this particular fact makes no difference between the two societies at all.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

Actually, the state is so incompetent to lust again that a statist system represent actually an addition of mafia. Libertarians propose to lust against every sort of mafia, civil or state. Actually, private police can be easily more efficient than public police because they are more competitives and mafia are also less offensive when people can simply carry a weapon free. Plus mafias, like corporations, get their power from infiltration into institutions aconnivence with the state. State is a problem and not a solution.

Private police don't serve a broader social purpose. They're just henchmen for a varying assortment of self-interested barons. It sounds to me like you are aiming to recreate feudalism.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

It's not exactly the same but it does'nt mean that we are really free either:

What IS really free? I need food and water, and I'm confined to the laws of gravity. I guess that means I'll never really be free. What exactly do you expect to get? Ancient Egypt and modern Norway are not merely "not exactly the same", they are profoundly different. They are different enough in the ways that matter.

There are matters of personal health, safety from physical attack, leisure time for oneself, the ability to gain knowledge, and to form relationships with other people. Those are things to measure a society by.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

[youtube=9u0TyDtn0v0]Ceci est l'histoire de votre esclavage[/youtube]

You remind me Ann Coulter each time we sugest to her any sort of retreat from Irak.

I don't see any resemblance.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

You stop to be a buisnessman as soon as you become a warlord. No war have ever been financed durably by buisness.

Who gives a shit about durability if it lasts long enough to indulge them for the rest of their own lives? After all, you have no government putting these people in check, they'll just act on their most selfish impulse.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

Every war have been financed by theft and taxes. Buisness is about create wealth or exange wealth you ever have, not about agressively take it.

Businesses clearly maneuver to do anti-competitive things with or without nudging from the government. They will take things.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

It's true elsewhere that buisnessperson help some goverments or political organisation to take power in order to serve their own interest. But without the state, they would'nt do it because it would'nt be rentable.

Without a government, nothing would be keeping them from maximizing their individual gain by violating others in every conceivable way.

[QUOTE=Speed Gavroche;1639331]
You make the point of the video I posted saying that there's not free society.[.quote]

And by your definition, there never will be, and it doesn't strike me as a very big concern.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

Most part of people are wimp and slave at heart, it's true. Does'nt mean that they are a model to follow.

If the society you propose is unsavory to the majority of humans, why shouldn't I be against it? Why exactly should I harm the many for the wants of the few?

Let's not call them slaves and wimps. Let's call them people who want to be happy, falling into a pattern because the cost-benefit ratio works out better for them in a statist society.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

A statist society is not a group of altruist.

It cooperates and consolidates more than an anarchy of business would.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

The entire world was anarcho-capitalist between 6000 B.C and 4000 B.C. If you look at this well, it was the most harmonious era that the humanity have never known.

Let's see.

First, while all the world was anarchist, some of it was not capitalist at all. Some people lived in ways that could be legitimately communist, the only time in history that's ever happened. This is because, given a small enough population, any model of government is workable.

Secondly, a much greater portion of fatality was the product of warfare/murder in that time period than today. You sound like Rousseau or something. There were no noble savages. On top of that, people died much younger of often unpleasant illnesses.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

I never said that.

The way that statement was phrased seemed to imply it.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

Market existed before the sate, for sure.

Bullshit. Before agriculture nothing sufficiently close to a market existed. Agriculture brought about civilization and government. In the initial phases, when we had chiefdoms, a market still effectively didn't exist, as the only real exchanged was harvest produced to then be alloted in some portion to the chief authority, with no variation.

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

If you are a loser, it is your responsability, it is not imposed to you. There's not cops, law, or soldier who impose you to be a loser.

Not a good argument. I could define just about anything as a game. The statist society is a game, with certain rules, and certain approaches exploit it and bring success while others don't. If stop paying federal taxes and agents come to your house because you didn't do a good job of hiding it, you played wrong. Suck it up, loser.

In reality, society will always be about shared responsibility, no matter what kind it is. Collective interest is why society exists.

Go to sleep, iguana.

_________________________________INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

I don't believe that. I don't think a business will be forced to operate in those terms in the absence of a government.

Concurence happens naturally when the market is not regulated and people are guided by self-interest.

In fact, in the absence of a government, it would be particularly tempting for someone to attempt taking what they want by unchecked force. You'll never find out how the economy operates a government free society because it will last all of two seconds.

No, because in a truly free society, every people can carry weapon, so they would hardly take risk to attack another one because of fear of the ripost.

Let me ask you again. Why do we have government everywhere? Why have your precious government-free cultures of antiquity essentially vanished?

Because of the natural impulse of opression. I propose to destruct its most elaborate manifestation: the sate.

I think an entrepreneur is essentially guaranteed to take the first opportunity to become a thief. So this particular fact makes no difference between the two societies at all.

Libertarians are in favor of sanctions against theses people for the same reason that they want to reduce or eliminate state. Minarchist are in favor of a minimal ste to protect life and propriety, but that has nothing to do with a scial-democracy like USA.

Private police don't serve a broader social purpose. They're just henchmen for a varying assortment of self-interested barons.

It can also serve simple people.

It sounds to me like you are aiming to recreate feudalism.

Feudalism was to protect people of one territory agaisnt people of another territory. I talke about a general protection of every people in a same territory, completely different.

What IS really free? I need food and water,

You are free when you can make your own choice to meet theses basic needs. Basic needs are not a coercion.

and I'm confined to the laws of gravity. I guess that means I'll never really be free

Like tons of socialist, you don't understand anything to the concept of liberty. You think that the bovine who is unchained but have enough food to eat is free. It is what you aspire to be, but that's you, not me.

What exactly do you expect to get? Ancient Egypt and modern Norway are not merely "not exactly the same", they are profoundly different. They are different enough in the ways that matter.

They are different in means, but not in end.

There are matters of personal health, safety from physical attack, leisure time for oneself, the ability to gain knowledge, and to form relationships with other people.

Thoses are your personal problem that you must face by yourself or with the help of thoses who want, you can't ask me to pay taxes to assist you because it is a restriction of my freedom.

I don't see any resemblance.

It always the same end: to keep us under control and make us nurish the power of the state.

Who gives a shit about durability if it lasts long enough to indulge them for the rest of their own lives? After all, you have no government putting these people in check, they'll just act on their most selfish impulse.

Something like the WWI or WWII could'nt happen without state with the power to make us pay tax in order to finance war. The predator instincts of buisnesspeople are assisted by state, the best thing we can do is to supressed their biggest weapon.

Businesses clearly maneuver to do anti-competitive things with or without nudging from the government. They will take things.

If you play in a competition and do anti-competitive things, count on the others competitors to correct you, except if you have a bigger wing with you, like the state.

Without a government, nothing would be keeping them from maximizing their individual gain by violating others in every conceivable way.

As I said, libertarians says that they can be stop by a minimal state or by privates reactions of self-defense.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche

You make the point of the video I posted saying that there's not free society.[.quote]

And by your definition, there never will be, and it doesn't strike me as a very big concern.

Yes, as I said, you aspire to be a bovine. But your will is not the mine.

Let's not call them slaves and wimps. Let's call them people who want to be happy, falling into a pattern because the cost-benefit ratio works out better for them in a statist society.

They are free to reach a good cost-benefit ration toward private insurance and cooperation, not by asking more taxes on other people in order to satisfy their private ends.

It cooperates and consolidates more than an anarchy of business would.

There's not altruism if there's coercion. Basic truth. Anarchy and buisness is free and spontaneous cooperation.

This is because, given a small enough population, any model of government is workable.

Wrong. Monaco have a small population, if you apply comunism in Monaco, you would see the bad results.

Secondly, a much greater portion of fatality was the product of warfare/murder in that time period than today.

There was very few war in comapraison with what will happen next.

You s ound like Rousseau or something. There were no noble savages.

No, they were not.

On top of that, people died much younger of often unpleasant illnesses.

They did'nt die younger than people in antiquity. It is a technologic problem, not politic.

Bullshit. Before agriculture nothing sufficiently close to a market existed

Agriculture existed before the state.

In the initial phases, when we had chiefdoms, a market still effectively didn't exist, as the only real exchanged was harvest produced to then be alloted in some portion to the chief authority, with no variation.

There was indeed a hierarchisaton of society, but did'nt become a sate before 4000 B.C at least. And private property also existed. And free trade. If you wanted to live without the tribe and to make buisness on your own, you did'nt end in a goulag. Don't compare it to communism.

Not a good argument. I could define just about anything as a game.

I did'nt say "looser" as in a game.

The statist society is a game, with certain rules, and certain approaches exploit it and bring success while others don't. If stop paying federal taxes and agents come to your house because you didn't do a good job of hiding it, you played wrong. Suck it up, loser.

Why should I respect theses rules?

In reality, society will always be about shared responsibility, no matter what kind it is. Collective interest is why society exists.

Other people problems and interest are not my responsability. What you call "collective interest" is simply a congregation of private interest. And it is their responsabilioty to defend them, if they find people who have common interests, they can cooperate and then it can be called "collective interest", but they cannot force me to cooperate if I think our interest are not the same, I'am responsible for me, I 'am not responsible for them as long as our interest are not commons.

EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

Chaotic Neutral

E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

"I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

"Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

The trick is to have a strong but limited government: a lot of power but little scope. That is, the government needs to be able to execute its rules and plans thoroughly, but its rules and plans should impinge on as narrow range of its citizens' activities as possible. This is a very difficult, if not impossible, balance to achieve and sustain.

Its a rich man's paradise, state that never interfers with them and some how they can dodge paying for and is a police state for the rest of us.

The libertarian metaphor of government is a mafia; it is a protection racket that uses force to control economic activity; it became the government by stamping out all competition. The progressive metaphor of government is something more like a babysitter.

The irony of using the mafia as a metaphor for government is that the mafia IS a private capitalist enterprise. Its the epitome of hardcore free markets and its not pretty, I mean how does the mafia deal with competition? As opposed to states? In the UK the state has given tax money to "stimulate" competition, simply given away to private individuals who transfer it off shore to untaxable accounts, I thought competition simply was and didnt need to be created or subsidised, so the free market logic goes anyway.

Whatever the metaphors, ALL the predictions of the austrians, Hayek and Mise, that simple welfare regimes and pensions would inevitably result in fascist totalitarian regimes failed to materialise, it was about as accurate as Marxist predictions about the state whithering away, so I dont see how you can treat the rest of their theories as credible when the crux of their argument, their central prediction, has fallen flat.